Why Harvard Decided to Challenge Donald Trump | The New Yorker

Harvard's Defiance of Trump Administration

Harvard University's refusal to comply with the Trump administration's demands regarding federal funding signifies a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict between government overreach and academic freedom.

Background: Previous Instances of University Submission

The article highlights past instances where universities, including Harvard, yielded to government coercion, citing examples during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. These instances involved issues such as military recruitment, sexual assault investigations, and the implementation of specific procedures for adjudicating campus sexual-assault complaints.

Trump Administration's Tactics

The Trump administration leveraged Title VI and Title IX, civil-rights statutes, to exert control over universities, casting efforts to protect constitutional rights—freedom of expression, diversity and equity initiatives, and protections for trans people—as forms of discrimination. The administration threatened to withhold billions of dollars in funding, targeting universities for alleged violations.

• Title VI: Used to control free speech by pairing it with allegations of antisemitism. The administration interpreted the statute to cover discrimination against Jews, even though the statute itself does not mention religion.
• Title IX: Used to pressure schools to change policies affecting transgender students, interpreting the law to mean that recognizing trans women constitutes discrimination against other female students.
• Targeting DEI initiatives: The administration lumped together legal and illegal DEI programs and policies, citing the Supreme Court's ruling against race-conscious affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) to justify their actions.

Harvard's Response and the Administration's Escalation

Initially, Harvard's president indicated a willingness to engage with the government. However, after the administration issued a letter containing excessive demands, including an audit of viewpoint diversity, Harvard decided to borrow funds from Wall Street to become financially independent from federal funding.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The article argues that the administration's actions were illegal due to their failure to comply with legal procedures before withholding funds and their attempt to control the university's academic activities. Harvard's defiance is presented as a necessary step to protect academic freedom and prevent future government overreach. The article also highlights the potential legal challenges and victories that could result from such defiance.